IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Randomizing file names, to compare lossy files etc.
Brand
post Dec 26 2012, 21:05
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 317
Joined: 27-November 09
Member No.: 75355



As you may know, comparing various lossy files (by ABXing each of them against the lossless file or something else) can be subject to some bias, if you know which of the lossy files you're testing.
You might have a preference for one lossy format or encoder and so you might (subconsciously) do the tests differently.

There's a way to eliminate this potential bias, by randomly renaming the lossy files.
Of course, at the end, you also need to know which file is which.
For this purpose, I found a simple script (Windows) that does just that: http://www.howtogeek.com/57661/stupid-geek...in-a-directory/
Put some files into the folder with the script, run the script and you will get: renamed files + a txt file that tells you which file is which, so you can check when you're finished.

To then use those files, it helps if they're of the same size/duration/metadata (easier with simple CBR files like WAV), so that Explorer (or whatever file manager you're using) doesn't give you any hints.
Even with different file sizes, you can select the icon view in Explorer, so that unless you hover over a file for a second or two, you won't see the details. You can then Ctrl+A on the files, unselect the ones you don't need and add the selected ones to Foobar without getting any extra information. You'll see what I mean when you try it in practice.


I found this an effective way to randomize files for blind testing on your own.
But if there's an easier way, let me know.

There's at least one thing that would improve this, though: copy the randomized files to clipboard. This would eliminate the need to select the files carefully, since they could simply be pasted into Foobar. Is there a way to add this to the script?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
greynol
post Dec 28 2012, 08:05
Post #2





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



To me the idea of being more transparent is like the idea of being more pregnant. Either something is or it isn't. If you're trying to rank something then ABX is the wrong tool.


--------------------
Concern trolls: not a myth.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post Dec 28 2012, 11:35
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 1842
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



QUOTE (greynol @ Dec 28 2012, 08:05) *
To me the idea of being more transparent is like the idea of being more pregnant. Either something is or it isn't. If you're trying to rank something then ABX is the wrong tool.


More visibly pregnant, I guess? Problem is, the original A may be indistinguishable from B may be indistinguishable from C, yet C might not be transparent. “ABX and ACX” could be helpful then.


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nessuno
post Dec 28 2012, 12:25
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 422
Joined: 16-December 10
From: Palermo
Member No.: 86562



QUOTE (Porcus @ Dec 28 2012, 11:35) *
More visibly pregnant, I guess? Problem is, the original A may be indistinguishable from B may be indistinguishable from C, yet C might not be transparent. “ABX and ACX” could be helpful then.

In this case would you say that B is "more transparent" than C (which simply is not)?
Or, put in another way, if a x quality level encoding of a track is proven to be transparent, a x + Dx level (same track, codec and encoder) is more transparent?


--------------------
... I live by long distance.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd August 2014 - 00:09